Top
250°

Battlefield 4 Beta CPU and GPU Benchmarks

HardwarePal : We have finally finished. $4500 worth of hardware , two very dedicated guys and some sleepless nights. We bring you the ultimate Battlefield 4 open beta cpu and gpu benchmarks.

Read Full Story >>
hardwarepal.com
The story is too old to be commented.
gaminglives996d ago

Not a BF fan, but such an interesting read nonetheless!

nukeitall996d ago

I hope the single player is good and they got some good co-op. I'm buying CoD because of this!

Campaign was atrocious on BF3, and worse than most games I played. It was a C- for lack of effort!

The_KELRaTH996d ago

While I agree that the last CoD SP game was really impressive even compared to previous CoD titles and BF3 SP was rather basic the longevity of these fps games lies in their multiplayer.

hiredhelp996d ago

Omg seriously everybody gota compare sp to cod cos thats how it really is.. The SP was just fine and no bf4 does not have co-op they dropped it sadly.

PeaSFor996d ago

you have to ride in a special bus each morning if you really buy a battlefield game for the single player.

UltimateMaster995d ago (Edited 995d ago )

Wow.
Such a huge minimal requirement between Vista and Win 8.

Great read overall.

bumnut995d ago

Battlefield games never had campaigns, until they felt they had to compete with COD

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 995d ago
awi5951995d ago (Edited 995d ago )

Lies all lies i played Bf4 beta on ultra at 50 fps on 2 7850 2Gb and a 8320 a very cheap build at 1080p res
. The cards cost 150 each and the cpu is 144. And the game isnt optimized yet.

Ohlmay996d ago

Dinosaur co-op mode prox

Tapioca Cold996d ago

Graphics nor gameplay is worth $4500 dollars. You pc guys keep saying its cheap. Yeah right

africanos23996d ago

Thats $4500 for 5 cpus , 2 motherboards , 2 high end gpus and one kick ass monitor.

CrusRuss995d ago

What was the point of this benchmarking effort? They only tested the gtx 770 what about everyone else with older gpus like gtx 580 670 etc? Kind of pointless to just test a single high end card.

gaminglives996d ago

To be honest, and speaking only for myself, I've played numerous games on console and PC, but the whole experience is always more... I dunno... fluid and immersive (in most cases) on the PC. Only thing that can sometimes kill PC gameplay is when you're expected to use the entire keyboard, but that's just because I prefer a controller and have done since before the Amiga days.

Gamer1982996d ago

$4500? where you get that number from?? You can build the system that gets the highest FPS there at 1080p for under $1000. I did. That's over 60fps average at 1080p something these new consoles that aren't even released can only dream of. PC comes without a monthly fee, cheaper games and can do a whole lot more. The savings over the lifetime vs console easily outweighs the initial cost. Just like last generation when people said the ps3 was more expensive. It was but when you took off the cost of live it was cheaper. Apples and oranges.

I prefer to get more bang for my buck so went PC.

FlyingFoxy996d ago (Edited 996d ago )

Well the difference is, for less than $1k you can build a PC with better in game options @ 1080p over console.. while usually keeping 60+fps. Something consoles don't stay good at. It's not all about resolution, plus games are always cheaper on PC.

It's only about double the cost of a console @ launch, and you pay thru the nose for launch games on consoles anyway.

Seeings as all the things you can do on a good PC like edit video, run emulators, free online play etc.. make it well worth the cost over a console.

bumnut995d ago

Looks like someone didn't read the article.

Feralkitsune995d ago (Edited 995d ago )

http://www.logicalincrement...
Click here please. This disproves any claims that a capable gaming PC is expensive.

Lisica995d ago

Read the article next time.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 995d ago
RankFTW996d ago

Using almost 10gig system RAM is a bit excessive.

MidnytRain995d ago (Edited 995d ago )

Something seems wrong here. I planned on getting an FX 6300 for 1080p gaming. I saw it bottomed out at 30fps on this benchmark at Ultra 1440p and was pretty satisfied. But then as you go down the list, the 6300's performance drops as the settings and resolution are turned down. How does that make sense?

Feralkitsune995d ago

Lower settings may put more strain on the CPU. That's what happens in the ARMA games. Higher settings are offloaded to the GPU , so if you have a GPU Higher settings work better than lower settings.

MidnytRain995d ago

Feralkitsune

Why wouldn't the settings be offloaded to the GPU by default?

FlyingFoxy996d ago

Interesting benchmarks, shows Intels CPU's are still pretty strong in comparison to AMD's. A Quad core Intel CPU recommended and for AMD the 6 core.

Letros996d ago

Usually that's how it has been, Intel outperforms AMD on half the core count.

Kleptic996d ago (Edited 996d ago )

Intel's per core performance is significantly better than AMD's current 'piledriver' lineup...

Around December AMD will finally release Kaveri, with 'steamroller' cores, which will be a much needed boost for AMD's cpu offerings...

Its definitely NOT the time to be buying an AMD cpu...8 cores in the 8350 is fine and great, but each individual core is pretty dated...

Intel is definitely in front of AMD cpu wise right now...But Intel seemingly has no interest in aggressive pricing...so as usual...you get what you pay for...

Show all comments...